Author
Topic: Female conscription (Read 3934 times)

I just read on one news site that Norwegian army (which still gets its recruits from conscription / draft) has decided that it will start drafting women. Previously, while the women were allowed to serve in the Norwegian army, they weren't subject to compulsory military service like the men. Now it's going to change and both men and women will be subject to the draft.

I believe that Norway's army would be the only European army to do a thing like that - and I think that there aren't many militaries in the world that draft women, overall. Actually, the only other army doing this that I can name is Israel's.

What do you think about it? Is it a natural thing to happen or is it gender equality going too far?

Personally, I'm all for it. It only makes sense, if we assume that both sexes have the same societal obligations...

I'm against conscription in general, but if it's an accepted thing then it should apply equally regardless of gender.

(Amusing anecdote: I remember a few years back, the news was simultaneously reporting that the US military was considering whether women should serve in combat, and the Canadian military was asking what its troops want in a military-issue bra.)

I'm against conscription in general, but if it's an accepted thing then it should apply equally regardless of gender.

I'm of exactly the same opinion.

I kind of wish we had this kind of discussion back here... unfortunately, there was no time for it. Our military actually started admitting voluntary female recruits only the late 1990s - and it was considered a big change then (heck, the man who is currently our president? He was the Defense Minister back then and he actually claimed that women shouldn't be allowed into officer schools etc. He claimed it was a threat to "female dignity" etc.). And then, only ten years later, our military dropped conscription altogether. So, there was no time for discussing the possibility of conscripting women...

But I'd really, really like to see this kind of discussion. I'd love to hear what our feminists would say about that...

Quote

(Amusing anecdote: I remember a few years back, the news was simultaneously reporting that the US military was considering whether women should serve in combat, and the Canadian military was asking what its troops want in a military-issue bra.)

Personally, I hope that the Canadian female soldiers asked that a military bra would have none of these awful ribbons and bows that plague ordinary bras...

(In all seriousness, IIRC the general consensus was "Supportive as all hell - no, more than that - and can we get some weather-variant options for warm and cold climates, please?")

Beorning: That's an argument that's always confused me. How exactly is it a threat to "female dignity" to put them in the upper levels of hierarchy? Particularly when they're already in the lower levels? It seems to me that this is exactly backward.

Feminists have been pushing in the US to get women on the front lines for decades. We don't want to feel like we're not allowed to give as much to the nation as the men can. Though, always, there's pushback because women are "Too Frail" or "Too Weak" to cope. Personally I think that indicates our Military's standards of soldiery are too freaking high.

"The key point of the game is to make us stare at Lara's bazookas, and I'm not thinking of her assault firearms."

OT: yes, if the army in a country that aspires to become gender equal is to run on compulsory draft, then gender shouldn't make any big difference. I'm not sure it's viable to have women trained for all kinds of combat positions, and that's a rather different issue, but gender equal draft really makes sense.

Beorning: That's an argument that's always confused me. How exactly is it a threat to "female dignity" to put them in the upper levels of hierarchy? Particularly when they're already in the lower levels? It seems to me that this is exactly backward.

Hey, don't ask me. I agree this kind of thing is a total bull... Still, that was exactly the position of Bronisław Komorowski: he claimed that women could be military doctors or nurses... or, maybe, work in the logistics. But women as commanders? Nah, threat to female dignity and all that...

What can I say? Komorowski was sexist toward female soldiers back then... and I'd say he's that way nowadays, too. Not too long before he became our President, he was visiting another country (I forgot... was it Denmark?) and he was invited to see a military ship. Upon arriving, he spotted some female staff members and he went *on record* with jokes on how ugly they were... *facepalms*

I honestly don't have a solid, data-supported answer to this, but even if the answer is yes, then the fact that we socialize girls and women to be meek and docile and nurtureing is certain to be a factor. In short, the solution to this problem is still less sexism, not more.

2. Are "women" and "men" even useful categories when talking about this?

They're extremely goddamn broad. I can name men who would be an active detriment on a battlefield, and women I'd trust more than the overwhelming majority of men to get me out of a lethal situation. In this, as in most things, even if there is a difference of ability, it's two mostly-overlapping bell curves - any difference is only to be found at the extreme edges.

From what I recall one of the main reasons for women not being in frontline roles actually has nothing to do with Women, but male instinct in regards to women in dangerous situations. It's hard enough for a soldier to see a close friend get injured or die in battle. But when almost all male instinct is to protect women in such a situation. That leads to a hornets nest worth of logistical, strategic and conflict issues.

I'm against conscription in general, but if it's an accepted thing then it should apply equally regardless of gender.

I am sort of the same, it should be a choice to serve in ones army, not forced. Unless its something like the damn aliens are invading and we are all screwed if we don't get a lot of people fighting them. Or some major catastrophy.

I personally am undecided on women in the army, if they can do it and prove they can meet the standards then go for it.

But it shouldn't become like a handout or something where every unit is mandated to have female soldiers.

Many people will sign up for military service on their own. Many more will stand and volunteer for their country in a time of need. My feeling is that, if a country runs out of both of those groups of people, that should be it. When you've reached a point where you have to force people to fight, perhaps that says something about what the general populace really wants.

So I'm very much of the mindset that there shouldn't be drafts/conscriptions. But if there are, they need to be gender neutral. It's one of the sucky things that comes with equality, gals - if guys can be forced to sign up and serve in combat, so should you.

I'm what's called a 'conscientious objector,' meaning it's against my personal belief to be forced to fight, so in America if I'm called up for some reason that will exclude me from duty. There's two levels to the law, depending on what your belief is - if you're against the 'killing' aspect you don't have to participate in combat but may still be forced to serve in other roles, or if you're against 'this whole war in general' you're protected from the draft entirely.

From what I recall one of the main reasons for women not being in frontline roles actually has nothing to do with Women, but male instinct in regards to women in dangerous situations. It's hard enough for a soldier to see a close friend get injured or die in battle. But when almost all male instinct is to protect women in such a situation. That leads to a hornets nest worth of logistical, strategic and conflict issues.

You're not wrong, I've thought the same myself and have read in-depth discussions of such before, but it bottom lines to something we just need to get over as a people. If we catered to 'male instinct,' a woman's place would still be in the home.

Well, I think Silk has a really good point and I'm not sure bringing women into let's say unit combat positions as a regular thing is viable - allowing it on a volunteer basis is a whole different thing. No matter social conditioning I don't think it would have worked mentally for the soldiers involved to have, like, 30% women among the ground troops at let's say the D-Day landings. A future war might not look exactly like that of course, but the group dynamics of survival involved are essentially the same.

Many people will sign up for military service on their own. Many more will stand and volunteer for their country in a time of need. My feeling is that, if a country runs out of both of those groups of people, that should be it. When you've reached a point where you have to force people to fight, perhaps that says something about what the general populace really wants.

So I'm very much of the mindset that there shouldn't be drafts/conscriptions. But if there are, they need to be gender neutral. It's one of the sucky things that comes with equality, gals - if guys can be forced to sign up and serve in combat, so should you.

I'm what's called a 'conscientious objector,' meaning it's against my personal belief to be forced to fight, so in America if I'm called up for some reason that will exclude me from duty. There's two levels to the law, depending on what your belief is - if you're against the 'killing' aspect you don't have to participate in combat but may still be forced to serve in other roles, or if you're against 'this whole war in general' you're protected from the draft entirely.You're not wrong, I've thought the same myself and have read in-depth discussions of such before, but it bottom lines to something we just need to get over as a people. If we catered to 'male instinct,' a woman's place would still be in the home.

Perhaps, but were talking about a situation that people are very likely to die and as such all measures to make sure that doesn't happen are considered. I don't see why we should put countless soldiers life in even more unnecessary danger or stress.

You know, you raise interesting points. I haven't thought about that issue... But are you sure that it couldn't be solved by training?

We might need to invite some soldier (Callie?) to chime in...

BTW. What about police officers, then? If this "men will unnecessarily risk their lives to protect the women" thing is true, then women shouldn't be allowed to be cops, either... Or firefighters. Or work in any role that puts them into risk...

War is not the Invasion of Normandy. It's not a massive clusterfuck of bullets shooting towards small boats as they race to shore to see who gets to die first.

War is personal. It's 5 and 10 men and women moving from room to room, street to street, corner to corner. We don't have tanks trundling down the streets of Cannes or Berlin, anymore. Warfare is a hell of a lot different today than it was then. "Every Measure" has gone from taking out gun-nests to sweeping a room to ensure it's clear, holding civilians at gunpoint while they're searched for weapons and explosives, and performing duties most people associate with Police Officers, minus the investigation and arrest. Unless it's arrest of life by hail of gunfire.

There isn't a "Front Line" anymore. We're not a military power pushing an enemy army along before us as we sweep through the area, dealing with false retreats and tank emplacements. We're not in setpiece warfare, anymore.

We're dealing with shock-strikes and guerilla tactics as the primary combat method of our enemies. We don't get to keep "Noncombatant Soldiers" safe from harm because our enemies don't accept that there are noncombatants. The distinction doesn't exist because we're all invaders and destroyers, whether we're holding the gun or telling the person with the gun who they should shoot. Part of why the military has considered a general nondeployment to combative regions order, here and there, over the past 20 years.

As for men's instinct: Men's instinct is to run away from explosions and fires. It's to hide and try not to get killed when the bullets are flying. It's to do anything it takes to avoid death, dismemberment, or at the lowest level: Pain. And we train our soldiers to fight through all of that.

Self Preservation is an instinct. Protecting Women isn't.

If it was then groups of criminals would fight each other when a woman was threatened. Men who see a gun pulled on a woman would almost always leap to action instead of trying to get away with their own lives intact. Men wouldn't savage women and kill them, endlessly. Fight or Flight would kick in. Either kill the attacker or get the woman away. We see, endlessly, how that doesn't happen. And when it does happen the man involved is someone's husband, father, brother, or has another deep personal connection that accounts for their actions. On the rare occasion where it's complete strangers the dude's always someone who would do it for anyone if they had the chance. Solid Hero Complex territory.

Protecting Women is a learned behavior. And even if it wasn't we teach men, every day, how to ignore their instincts and do their job.

You know, you raise interesting points. I haven't thought about that issue... But are you sure that it couldn't be solved by training?

We might need to invite some soldier (Callie?) to chime in...

BTW. What about police officers, then? If this "men will unnecessarily risk their lives to protect the women" thing is true, then women shouldn't be allowed to be cops, either... Or firefighters. Or work in any role that puts them into risk...

Except both of those situations are only potential dangers and for police tend to only work in pairs at most, its very different dangers with their own regulations. After all the on the street bobby isn't going to be taking part in SWAT raids for example. Also the mortality rate between the three is still very heavily in front line armies favor.

Now how did I miss this topic so far...? Need to be paying closer atention, I guess. Aniway, heres my take on the subject, as a professional soldier in Croatian military. To clarify, I vasnt drafted, its my career choise, has been for almost 5 years now. Just in recent months, my country has reintroduced conscription, in order to create a viable reservist force to supplant the standing army, in light of the increasingly unstable vorldwide political climate. On-topic, conscription here is limited only to men, and that is something I strongly disagree with. I think Norway has the right idea, and I see it as a sensible, progressive vay of thinking. Not only for equality's sake, but also makes sense on a purely logistical level, doubling the potential pool of able recruits.

As far as vhether or not I'm in favor of forced conscription in general... I'd have to say that, under normal circumstanses, I wuld not be, I belive people shuld have the right to decide for themselvs if they want to serve their country by serving in the military or not. But it has its place in a time of emergency (or potential emergency). And it certainly has its place in the current world-wide geopolitical climate. So under the circumstances that exist today in the world - I am in favor of it, and I'm glad my country is taking the issue seriusly enogh to reintroduce it. Of corse, I have plenty of gripe regarding the severe laxity of training standards for conscripts compared to professional troops, but thats another issue that I vont go into, since it wuld be straying from the topic.

But on a semi-related note, I feel I shuld adress Steampunkette's point:

Feminists have been pushing in the US to get women on the front lines for decades. We don't want to feel like we're not allowed to give as much to the nation as the men can. Though, always, there's pushback because women are "Too Frail" or "Too Weak" to cope. Personally I think that indicates our Military's standards of soldiery are too freaking high.

As much as I dont want to, I have to agree vith said pushback. Military service (professional one aniway) is anything but easy, the training regimens are insanely taxing on both body and mental state (in case of live-fire exercises and survival courses, for instance), And high physical/psychological standards have to be met. The "standards of soldiery" are in place for a VERY sound reason. Warfare today is a game of psychological attrition as much as it is a combat engagement, be it conventional or unconventional. Soldiers have to contend vith not only the enemy and their innate fear of getting hurt/killed, but also to be ready to make hard and often nerve-wracking choices at a moments' notice, and be ready to live vith the consequences. Like Steampunkette said, there is no such thing as a setpiece warfare any longer, clean, tidy and structured. Real war happens on a very personal level, and unlike the idealized version of it seen and romanticized in movies/books/games, there really are no rules in war. And a soldier has to expect that, and be able to handle it vithout breaking (be it physicaly or mentally).

If a woman can not compete with her male counterparts in any specific area (physical or psychological), she has no place being a professional soldier, and potentialy compromising her vhole assigned unit as a result, in a combat situation, being the "weak link". At least not until/unless she trains up/toughens up enogh to compete on equal footing. Of corse, that goes for men as wel, those who fail to meet the requirements. If you cant cut it, you cant cut it, no matter vhat you have betwen your legs. Come back and reapply vhen you can.

Regarding the issue of women in the army and male instinct regarding them... I say its a non-issue. That "protective instinct" is learned, not innate, in my opinion, and a result of long-established societal norms, seeing us as innately "weaker" and in need of protection. I'v seen it in action, I'v experienced it during my training, I had to prove myself more than my male colleagues in the eyes of drill-instructors, to show them I "have vhat it takes". And like all misguided ideas, that tendency can be unlearned. And it shuld be. The only *real* obstacle for women to serve in the military, IMO, is the same one that exists for men; their level of ability/comitment. But, that said, I absolutely believe in equal standards of admission for both men and women. Women shuld NOT be privileged there in any way, or subjected to any less rigorous training and conditioning, compared to men. Standards are there for a reason, and shuld not be changed to accomodate anyone.

A couple things I note each time I see such discussions but at this point in time are probably kind of moot:

Every time I see someone mention conscientious objectors I cannot help but feel like that would be great if we were dealing with reasonable people. But if all people were reasonable we would have no need for war and killing one another ISIS anyone?

As for women and conscription, in the US men have to register for the draft but I honestly do not feel we will see a draft again because strictly volunteers seem to be filling the need. Having said that one of my issues with women in combat is along the lines of it is hard to protect the fairer sex from things like rape if captured. Now some pretty nasty things can happen to male combatants, but stuff like rape for whatever reason hits me on a more personal level. Thus I have an issue with women in combat not because of capability but all things being equal men do not get raped.

Now I am sure I shall be promptly crucified here for this point of view, but I have never seen anyone address this issue to my liking.

Having said that one of my issues with women in combat is along the lines of it is hard to protect the fairer sex from things like rape if captured. Now some pretty nasty things can happen to male combatants, but stuff like rape for whatever reason hits me on a more personal level. Thus I have an issue with women in combat not because of capability but all things being equal men do not get raped.

Now I am sure I shall be promptly crucified here for this point of view, but I have never seen anyone address this issue to my liking.

Let me try to adress it. Just today in the newspaper, I read a article about female Kurd units battling ISIS, and their cited extreme efectiveness in combat, in part because of their intense fear of capture by the jihadists. Those women, acording to one that was aparently interviewed, wuld sooner fight to the death then be captured, and wuld actualy kill themselves if that becomes unavoidable. That fear is a powerful motivator in combat. They'r not afraid of dying or getting hurt, they wont surender even if its hopeless, their only fear is of being captured and mistreated/raped. So esentialy, the possibility of rape only motivates them more (and of corse, I completly emphatize vith them there).

A couple things I note each time I see such discussions but at this point in time are probably kind of moot:

Every time I see someone mention conscientious objectors I cannot help but feel like that would be great if we were dealing with reasonable people. But if all people were reasonable we would have no need for war and killing one another ISIS anyone?

As for women and conscription, in the US men have to register for the draft but I honestly do not feel we will see a draft again because strictly volunteers seem to be filling the need. Having said that one of my issues with women in combat is along the lines of it is hard to protect the fairer sex from things like rape if captured. Now some pretty nasty things can happen to male combatants, but stuff like rape for whatever reason hits me on a more personal level. Thus I have an issue with women in combat not because of capability but all things being equal men do not get raped.

Now I am sure I shall be promptly crucified here for this point of view, but I have never seen anyone address this issue to my liking.

Well, I think Ret has a point: even if technically guys can get raped it is hugely more rare in a warlike (or thuggy) situation than with women. Or any situation really, except in jail.

It's hard to get around that war entails killing the enemy's soldiers, and running the risk of getting killed or maimed yourself, particularly if you're in the combat zone, or "the front". Or sometimes killing civilians (by design or as "collateral damage") who are deemed to "be in cooperation" with the soldiers. Okay, there hasn't been anything quite like Normandy or the battle for Britain in the last forty years, not in the developed world anyway, but that's more or les because the powers that be have wanted to avoid that kind of head-on, long conflict - and when the US has been at war in the middle east it hasn't been with enemies who had the same level of stock equipment and technical advantage: Saddam's air force was no match at all for the USAF. An army or a navy have to be prepared for all-out confrontations in something like a WW2 style too, that level of carnage and gruelling fighting.

I remember seeing the film director Samuel Fuller in an old interview on French tv, talking about his reminiscences of D-Day; he was present on Omaha Beach as a young GI, and here he sat talking about what it had felt like to see people getting gunned down around him and sinking into the water, men drowning under their own backpacks, the fear, the smell of death and the resolve (I have since read other people talking about their experiences of that day but Fuller was the first one I heard or read who gave a clearly personal account). I really can't imagine it would have worked and kept up momentum with a large proportion of female drafted soldiers, no matter what kind of mindset people would have been coming in with. Every other man in that crowd would have thought as a woman struggled by his side or as she was coldly gunned down: "Why are you here, lady?" and felt compelled to help her, save her.

Let me try to adress it. Just today in the newspaper, I read a article about female Kurd units battling ISIS, and their cited extreme efectiveness in combat, in part because of their intense fear of capture by the jihadists. Those women, acording to one that was aparently interviewed, wuld sooner fight to the death then be captured, and wuld actualy kill themselves if that becomes unavoidable. That fear is a powerful motivator in combat. They'r not afraid of dying or getting hurt, they wont surender even if its hopeless, their only fear is of being captured and mistreated/raped. So esentialy, the possibility of rape only motivates them more (and of corse, I completly emphatize vith them there).

So no... no crucifiction will be necessary, dear!

I really don't think that's applicable to most kinds of wars a country like the US or just about any European country would find themselves in, however grave. Sorry.

I really don't think that's applicable to most kinds of wars a country like the US or just about any European country would find themselves in, however grave. Sorry.

More applicable then you think. Wars arent those tidy, by-the-book things you see in movies. Never have been, never wil be. The reality of any war is a lot difrent. I was born during a war, I lived a good portion of my childhood thru it, and I remember how it vas like.

Quote

Every other man in that crowd would have thought as a woman struggled by his side or as she was coldly gunned down: "Why are you here, lady?" and felt compelled to help her, save her.

And if he thought that, then he wuld need to reasess his thinking, and alter his mindset, because like I pointed out, that kind of thinking has no place on the front line. Why is she there shuld be obvius, the same reason he is there.

More applicable then you think. Wars arent those tidy, by-the-book things you see in movies. Never have been, never wil be. The reality of any war is a lot difrent. I was born during a war, I lived a good portion of my childhood thru it, and I remember how it vas like.

Those Kurdish women are speaking from a position where they don't have a recognized state of their own, a home country with respected borders (not even in peacetime!) and where even their language and history are outlawed in public (Kurdish books, newspapers and schools have been forbidden in Turkey for many decades, and it was the same in pre-2003 Iraq I think). And they are expecting to die, rather than to win. When that's the deal it creates a completely different set of methods and combat aims (and a different kind of mindset) than when a country which has been on the map for centuries and has a well-trained regular army, modern fortifications and a regular air force is going to war.

Those Kurdish women are speaking from a position where they don't have a recognized state of their own, a home country with respected borders (not even in peacetime!) and where even their language and history are outlawed in public (Kurdish books, newspapers and schools have been forbidden in Turkey for many decades, and it was the same in pre-2003 Iraq I think). And they are expecting to die, rather than to win. When that's the deal it creates a completely different set of methods and combat aims (and a different kind of mindset) than when a country which has been on the map for centuries and has a well-trained regular army, modern fortifications and a regular air force is going to war.

Wow, talk about arrogance and condescention. Honey, get real, because this is pathetic. You know vhat the only real "combat aim" in any war is? To crush the enemy, and make them give up on fighting you. In that, there are no rules, and if you think there are, you'r delusional. You think those heroines give a damn vhat you (or anyone else) thinks about their culture and language? Fat chance. All that matters to them is that it is their home, and they'l do everything in their power to protect it. Thats the real mindset in any war. And abstract borders on a map make zero diference. If that kind of war came to ANY country, its people wuld become exactly like those Kurd women.

Women unfortunately get all sorts of obstacles put in the way of their military service, some official but many are unofficial efforts to target them and try to force them out. While obviously psychological toughness is a vital trait, when women are subjected to this alongside the existing designed challenges of military training, then it's not going to be a fair assessment or allow them to get the best results out of their training. There were some allegations in the Australian military recently about some pretty cretinous treatment of women, I absolutely adore this response from our Chief of Army and think that it's relevant enough to post.

While I don't think that a country should engage in conscription, then if they do then it should certainly be inclusive. Perhaps those who do not meet the requirements of the army, regardless of sex and gender, could be placed in some other form of service.

For the record, it was no part of my point to try to belittle the courage and fighting spirit of Kurdish women, or of Kurdish guerrillas in general. I was after something completely different and I figure it was being made fairly clear what it was.

Thus why I said "all things being equal" that was my attempt to show that I was not saying it does not happen, and there was the crucifixion I anticipated.

No attempt at personal judgement here. I changed my wording slightly with an edit because I realized my original wording sounded far too rude and arrogant, but even with my original clumsy phrasing (saying "that's simply not true" if you didn't see it) I certainly didn't and don't intend to crucify you. Just disagreeing with your assessment.

I don't understand what you mean by "all things being equal" though. Are you intending to convey that it's a rare occurrence? Because if you have a look at the numbers presented within the sources I showed, then unfortunately even that is not supported by the evidence.

The point I am trying to make is that I think, and I think the statistics agree with me, that more women suffer rape than men. I am not saying a large number of men do not suffer sexual violence, but I am saying it is more prevalent that women are the victims.

Now the stats or sketchy at best, toss in war which further clouds the issue because of the inherent ugly nature of the matter and it gets even more sketchy. But I kind of feel like we should do all we can to control such things even if elimination is not going to happen.

As for conscription? Sure if you are going to have conscription and have women in combat then the women should sign right up along with the men. But call me unenlightened, but with women in combat even assuming they would get raped as often as men, then there is still the unwanted pregnancy issue....it just opens a can of worms that I am not comfortable with. And in none of this am I asserting that equally qualified women are not as capable as men.

And I think the point Louise was trying to make which I somewhat agree with is that it is different when one has an established country and when one is trying to carve out there own place. I know this can be perceived as arrogant, but they are situations that are faced with differing realities.

Maybe. Its just that the general tone of her post didnt sit wel vith me on that level. Since like I said, I emphatize with the Kurds, their situation being not that dissimilar to the one my country faced 25 years ago.

But that vasnt the main point I vas aiming for. The main point was to ilustrate the kind of mindset people tend to develop in the middle of a war, on the frontlines. And wartime mindset has nothing to do vith where you live, established country or not. If it came down to the basics, and stark survival, instinct wuld take over. And also to provide a real-life example of how a perceived disadvantage women face in wartime (rape when captured, in this case) can be used to their advantage and provide motivation to be more efective in combat.

And in none of this am I asserting that equally qualified women are not as capable as men.

Don't worry, I never thought that you were.

Quote

The point I am trying to make is that I think, and I think the statistics agree with me, that more women suffer rape than men. I am not saying a large number of men do not suffer sexual violence, but I am saying it is more prevalent that women are the victims.

It's always difficult to judge the statistics, as you mentioned elsewhere in your post, of such a contentious subject with so many instances going unreported. One issue though is that the statistics in the sources you link are for non-wartime rape, which from what I've seen are quite a different gender-ratio from the use of rape as torture against prisoners of war. However I would still be inclined to agree with you that women experience a statistically higher rate of experiencing this form of sexual violence and that it is supported by the evidence to the best standards we have currently.

Quote

But I kind of feel like we should do all we can to control such things even if elimination is not going to happen.

I get where you're coming from. I actually think that potentially I could agree with you on that point, strictly as it relates to conscription. Where someone potentially has more threat against them then forcing them into that situation is very different morally from allowing them to knowingly and voluntarily accept that risk. (Edit: To be clear I say potentially because although I can see your argument, it sits uneasily with some of my other feelings on the subject, so I'll have to think about it some more to try to come to any real conclusion. It's certainly a tricky issue.)

Quote

But call me unenlightened

No plans of doing that.

Quote

but with women in combat even assuming they would get raped as often as men, then there is still the unwanted pregnancy issue

That is also a factor, to be sure. Although I would argue that the social treatment of men who experience sexual assault, the lack of resources for their support and the potential resulting damage to their gender identity with present ideas of gender roles also create similarly unparalleled issues for male victims that females would not experience. However that's a comparing apples with oranges case that really can have little data to support discussion.

And I think the point Louise was trying to make which I somewhat agree with is that it is different when one has an established country and when one is trying to carve out there own place. I know this can be perceived as arrogant, but they are situations that are faced with differing realities.

*nods* Exactly. And the time frame is different too. Few established countries see themselves fighting a war continuously for thirty years or more, especially not near their own borders or inside of them, but national independence movements and liberation fronts of nations that are trying to carve out their own state - they have often been at war on that kind of a timescale (PLO/al-Fatah, the Tamil Tigers, Kurdish PKK and so on). Entering into a steady peace settlement is simply not an option, even if the movement is getting hammered. So people in those nations and minorities grow up with the war going on.

Also, when I said the Kurds are not winning I was thinking mostly of the situation in Turkey, where they are not on the verge of setting up their own state - and the major Kurd parties want a Kurdistan that straddles areas that are now situated in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. And in Iraq, honestly, their near establishing a state of their own has become possible more because the central power in the country has almost collapsed over the last two years.

The point I am trying to make is that I think, and I think the statistics agree with me, that more women suffer rape than men. I am not saying a large number of men do not suffer sexual violence, but I am saying it is more prevalent that women are the victims.

Now the stats or sketchy at best, toss in war which further clouds the issue because of the inherent ugly nature of the matter and it gets even more sketchy. But I kind of feel like we should do all we can to control such things even if elimination is not going to happen.

Slightly off-topic:

I seem to recall questions along these lines were raised in a previous thread, although for the life of me I can't remember which one.

It deals with civilians as opposed to soldiers but one of the sad facts of modern war is that, soldier or not, pretty much everyone is viewed as at least a possible combatant. And it also deals with the way that NGO's and the like frequently ignore male victims of rape during war... both with regards to aid and with regards to reporting. The UN has made a number of resolutions and the like about sexual violence... but almost all are directed entirely at women. Because it's the most hidden of hidden crimes getting stats on it is near impossible

Caehlim -> we are not really far apart. It is a very touchy subject I freely admit, but one of my pet peeves is our modern tendency to ignore uncomfortable truths just because they are uncomfortable.

Agreed. I think that those are often the things that most need to be discussed and brought into the light of day. Too many issues fester unaddressed because they're too awkward or impolite for people to discuss them reasonably.

And it also deals with the way that NGO's and the like frequently ignore male victims of rape during war... both with regards to aid and with regards to reporting. The UN has made a number of resolutions and the like about sexual violence... but almost all are directed entirely at women. Because it's the most hidden of hidden crimes getting stats on it is near impossible

I agree that this is another issue that needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately it's so often a difficult thing to discuss, and particularly with a lot of strong opinions on gender-bias at the moment it can be viewed as politically incorrect to say that more needs to be done for male victims, which is a pity in cases like this. It's why I'm glad that modern feminism includes the intersectionality theory allowing a place for this sort of discussion.

One of the problems with the UN, Geneva Convention, and other such well meaning but ultimately meaningless things is that they are toothless tigers. In a war torn nation enforcing such laws is pretty much impossible and short of things like the Nirenberg trials virtually none of the perpetrators are ever forced to face justice. In fact, in some cases where one has a combatant that follows the rules so to speak fighting one who does not, the former is at a distinct disadvantage.

War is ugly, but I suspect it will be with us until we deal with the tin horn dictators and terrorists of the world. I am not so naive as to think there is any way to deal with them other than a high speed round between their eyes. A harsh fact, fact all the same.

One of the problems with the UN, Geneva Convention, and other such well meaning but ultimately meaningless things is that they are toothless tigers.

I don't think these laws were ever really intended to deal with the modern realities of guerrilla warfare. These were treaties, intended to be kept between countries fielding large forces of conventional troops and holding to these standards (when you thought anyone was watching) would help you too since you wanted the enemy to hold to them as well.

Some new approach needs to be designed for the modern age. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions for how this could be done.

Since this topic got me to thinking some other things came to mind. As Marchoisas pointed out, females should be able to pass physical standards for whatever job they are assigned to preform. But from personal experience things get more complicated...

I was an accomplished wrestler during my competitive career and coached many years after retiring from competition. In one state greco roman championship back in the day a group of young women who were judo practitioners showed up. All well and good, but there is a difference in the genders even if greco and judo are kissing cousins in disciplines. One of said women ran into well me, in the quarter finals. We were both the same weight, I know for fact at the time I was sporting a whole 3% body fat, the rest of me was muscle. I also know as a biological fact that it is a very rare woman who has a body fat content of below 10%. I think you can see who had a decided power advantage considering the weights were equal. We were also by and large technical equals so one can see how it all turned out.

Fast forward, I am coaching youth wrestling including both my son and my daughter. I coached other young women as well, women's wrestling is an Olympic sport and I would never tell my daughter she cannot do anything my son can do. But my experience there with several references by and large went along these lines. Pre adolescence, the young women tended to be better performers. They matured faster and had more coordination at an earlier age. That all ended when adolescence set in and the young men began packing on the muscle males are known for. The young women at that point just did not have the physical tools at hand, it was simple biology. Thus why the genders are separated in most sports.

I feel like these are factors that come into play in military service as well. If a nation is sending human beings into combat they need every advantage they can get. And once again I am not saying women are not qualified, many, many are. But we have got to keep these factors in mind in my opinion otherwise we are setting them up for failure. And this is not a simple competition, this is a life and death matter.

First, while it's true that there's a 'mandatory' military service of one year for people ( formerly only men ) after finishing secondary school, this military service has very little to do with actual war or combat. They're trained, then sent home, assuming Norway isn't ... invaded. When Norway sends people overseas, it's on an entirely voluntary and highly selective basis. The number of actual Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan, for instance, numbers in the low hundreds. And the selection process for these individuals is incredibly rigorous.

Also, military service in Norway has always been open to women - just not mandatory.

With that said, every year, around 60 000 Norwegians enter into the age range that may be required to do a year of military service. For various reasons, not all of these are actually called to take the physical exams required. Because this was previously only mandatory for men, the number of men taking their physicals has obviously been higher. In 2012, nearly 7000 women and 17000 men took these tests, and 5500 women and 14500 men were found to be fit for service. ( The requirements for this are not very high; I was found fit for service all those years ago, and there is no conceivable way I could be in the military ).

Of these roughly 20 000, only about 9000 actually do military service each year. It used to be higher, but these days they actually have more volunteers than they can take. That is, if you show up to get your physical exam and you tell them you don't want in, they won't take you.

What this means, though, is the military service that is now 'mandatory' for women, can afford to be highly selective about who gets taken. Statistical differences in biology are irrelevant when you have such a large pool, and the selection is so rigorous.

I hope that clears up some things.

On a personal note, my only problem with the change to the laws in Norway is that they didn't make it voluntary for both men and women instead.

BTW. I asked some of my Polish web acquaintances about this issue. One woman replied that there are obvious biological differences between men and women - and that, because of them, women can only play support roles in the military...

Admittedly, the woman who said this is in her 60s, still... I hear this kind of opinions and I really don't know what to think of them...

Here is an interesting article, with numbers from the US Army. Here's an interesting paragraph ( emphasis added ):

Quote

Males are more aggressive, which can be beneficial in combat. But that trait also leads to more accidents and injuries, up to and including eye injuries (men in the military have twice as many as women) and suicide (men account for about 95% of military suicides). Women are more nurturing, and their most basic form of nurturing – motherhood – accounts for 58% of hospitalizations among active-duty female troops. But they also crash and kill themselves much less often. Yet even once pregnancy and delivery hospitalizations are removed from the equation, female troops are hospitalized at a rate 30% higher than their male counterparts.

Saying that men are, on average, more physically fit than women, is at best an oversimplification. It also ignores the fact that men statistically being physically stronger does not mean that all men are physically stronger than all women. The same applies in the army.

I'd like to know what the 'biological differences' crowd would say if it were somehow demonstrated that an all-female military would actually be more effective. Because I think I can anticipate some of the reactions, and I doubt it'd lead to men being removed from the frontlines.

Even if we accept that biological differences in capability exist in all the capacities that people arguing against equality claim they do... it's not two separate and distinct realms. It's two closely-overlapping bell curves - clear distinctions can only be made among statistical outliers. Pick whatever fuzzy section around the peak of that curve and call it "average", and even within those constraints there is enough overlap that there are lots of average women who equal or outperform lots of average men, and vice versa. Perhaps individual capability is more relevant than sex?

I'd like to know what the 'biological differences' crowd would say if it were somehow demonstrated that an all-female military would actually be more effective. Because I think I can anticipate some of the reactions, and I doubt it'd lead to men being removed from the frontlines.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to have an all-female military? To the best of my knowledge it hasn't really been something we've ever seen before in history. I really do wonder what it would be like and what (if any) differences we'd observe.

I dislike the idea of conscription under any circumstance. Forcing someone to serve in the military is ridiculous in the modern world. Conflicts are fought at twenty thousand feet through precision, laser guidance systems; not grunts on the ground. Only occupations require a fielded military... And as anyone who's paid attention to the middle east in the past ten years can tell, you, its not a very efficient use of soldiers.

Having said that one of my issues with women in combat is along the lines of it is hard to protect the fairer sex from things like rape if captured. Now some pretty nasty things can happen to male combatants, but stuff like rape for whatever reason hits me on a more personal level. Thus I have an issue with women in combat not because of capability but all things being equal men do not get raped.

Now I am sure I shall be promptly crucified here for this point of view, but I have never seen anyone address this issue to my liking.

I kind of wish we had this kind of discussion back here... unfortunately, there was no time for it. Our military actually started admitting voluntary female recruits only the late 1990s - and it was considered a big change then (heck, the man who is currently our president? He was the Defense Minister back then and he actually claimed that women shouldn't be allowed into officer schools etc. He claimed it was a threat to "female dignity" etc.). And then, only ten years later, our military dropped conscription altogether. So, there was no time for discussing the possibility of conscripting women...

But I'd really, really like to see this kind of discussion. I'd love to hear what our feminists would say about that...

Personally, I hope that the Canadian female soldiers asked that a military bra would have none of these awful ribbons and bows that plague ordinary bras...

I qoat his to correct you: The U.S draft exists still. All men at 18 are required to sign for involitary draft. We just havent evoked it for years. It exists, we sign it ( it is a fed offense not to.) It's simply not in proccess at this time. Tomorow can be the next world war, and congress can vote in a draft.

American women do not sign. Frankly, feminists are not rushing out the door to change that. And the goverment wont, feminist would quickly bully and ruin any one involved. (They say they would change it if they could, but we all know the word oppression will get labeled on such a vote.) I assure you, most current gen feminists are narcissist melenials that discovered they can blame everything on others and sound entitled and important while doing it. All while the wiser and older ones, or select few with a lick of sense face palm and try to patch the holes of their sinking ship. It's why I call myself aglitarian, as to not connect my self with it's current and highly toxic community's. Which preach falacies, half truths and over generalized bs, all a while oppresing any man or women with I differing opinion.

(I coulda just said over entitled bullies but, I like to talk in detail. ^^ )

Steampinket:

Quote

Less rape on civilian populaces during wartime and occupations?

Oh ya, because a women would never rape. Their presence would totally keep war crimes at a minimum, after all, we are talking about women. Fellow human beings that are just as liable of human evil as they are good. They could never enact base human instinct, would never straddle and force themselvs on a man, or kill a kid with a back pack because he may have a bomb. Nope, human error and human evil is a mans issue. More women in the army would just make things automatically more humane in times of war. Keep those dastardly men with twirling mustaches in line. "Keep your willy in your pants."

Quote

Having said that one of my issues with women in combat is along the lines of it is hard to protect the fairer sex from things like rape if captured. Now some pretty nasty things can happen to male combatants, but stuff like rape for whatever reason hits me on a more personal level. Thus I have an issue with women in combat not because of capability but all things being equal men do not get raped.

Now I am sure I shall be promptly crucified here for this point of view, but I have never seen anyone address this issue to my liking.

See, people dont seem to understand rape. It is not just something a guy or gal does for gratification. No. It is the most effective fear tactic, the most effective way to dehumanize some one. Break them, hurt them. Not just for torture, but for pleasure. A rapist is not typically a lonely person, a lonely person can simply use porn. A rapist is a Sadist. Men do get raped, in prison more often then not, but I wouldnt put it past troops in war to rape a dude just to make him feel worthless. Rape is not just for pleasure, it's to hurt another in the most harmful way imaginable.

Men dont get raped? I feel sorry if you ever go to prison. Just... Dont drop the soap... It's not a myth. Men do get raped, the very comment that they dont is just.... Gross. Gives a empty feeling in the stomach. Believe me it happens. Ive known male rape victims. The problem with slogans like "Teach men not to rape." Makes it easy for people to forget men can be raped, and not only men do it. It is a sad horrible thing, and it does happen.

I assure you, most current gen feminists are narcissist melenials that discovered they can blame everything on others and sound entitled and important while doing it.

My apologies, its difficult to do this without coming across like a bitch, but I can't work out what word you meant by the highlighted word. The best I could get was "menials" which doesn't seem to make sense in context.

Sorry again,I really hope this doesn't come across as condescending or similar.

American women do not sign. Frankly, feminists are not rushing out the door to change that. And the goverment wont, feminist would quickly bully and ruin any one involved. (They say they would change it if they could, but we all know the word oppression will get labeled on such a vote.)

Or, possibly, not.

Quote from: Wikipedia

In 1971, draft resisters in the United States initiated a class-action suit alleging that male-only conscription violated men's rights to equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg, reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups, including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity.

My apologies, its difficult to do this without coming across like a bitch, but I can't work out what word you meant by the highlighted word. The best I could get was "menials" which doesn't seem to make sense in context.

Sorry again,I really hope this doesn't come across as condescending or similar.

No, you dont sound bitchy at all my lady. Thanks for the link there Blyth, im glad you helped so people can understand my wording. >_<

Quote

In 1971, draft resisters in the United States initiated a class-action suit alleging that male-only conscription violated men's rights to equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg, reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups, including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act, stating that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than equity.

Sorry for the confusion, I am not speaking of past feminism or groups, I am speaking of modern ones. You know.... The ones that would probably spit in my face for saying they are narcissist. Just because women in 1971 tried, doesnt change the fact that the women of today, out crying over shirts and video games, would. (I believe they would, not care to change the draft.)

Listen, in the past things were probably more civil. Male rights advocates and womens rights advocates worked together on common goals, thats great. But, I dont think they would today. Frankly, watch women who protest at men rights events, and you can see there is no getting along there any more.

See, this leaves us with a problem. You claim that feminism wouldn't oppose the draft, I point out that the one time its been to court feminism did oppose the draft. You claim that its now changed. Neither of us know for sure, obviously, but the sole piece of evidence we actually have suggests you're wrong.

Listen, what I am saying is. Just because it HAS, doesnt mean the entirely new generation of people WILL. The new generation are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. With DIFFERENT opinions, and DIFFERENT concerns. The past is the past, the future the future, the present the present. In the present, it is not the same women, and they do not by default share the same exact opinions or views. (By default due to them being their own person's.)

In essence my dear Kythia, I am stating an opinion. Perhaps I did so as fact, but none the less an opinion. I may not have no evidence. But women long old retired, or dead is not evidence they will. Only that they have tried, this generation has NOT and frankly I dont see them doing it. You cant prove they care, just as much as I cant prove they dont. Simple fact remains, most act like they do not.

Sorry if my opinion offends you. But I simply find it hard to believe the feminists of today act in my best interest.

Oh! Thats good to know. Not that I need validation, but when some one makes it clear they are not mad it is... Well refreshing. I am an in general passive dude. I detest making people mad or uncomfortable, it's why I tend not to be on these boards in spite of my strong views and opinions.

Listen, what I am saying is. Just because it HAS, doesnt mean the entirely new generation of people WILL. The new generation are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. With DIFFERENT opinions, and DIFFERENT concerns. The past is the past, the future the future, the present the present. In the present, it is not the same women, and they do not by default share the same exact opinions or views. (By default due to them being their own person's.)

In essence my dear Kythia, I am stating an opinion. Perhaps I did so as fact, but none the less an opinion. I may not have no evidence. But women long old retired, or dead is not evidence they will. Only that they have tried, this generation has NOT and frankly I dont see them doing it. You cant prove they care, just as much as I cant prove they dont. Simple fact remains, most act like they do not.

Sorry if my opinion offends you. But I simply find it hard to believe the feminists of today act in my best interest.

Sorry,k but "X will not happen!" is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.

You're singling out feminists here - as Kythia pointed out, it hasn't been to court since. Why is only one group responsible for that?(For the record, I'm a feminist, and I oppose the draft for everyone. It's barbaric and needless.)